The end of an emotional journey of the ANNs saga: emotional perception, ANNs and the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Smartt, Ursula (2026) The end of an emotional journey of the ANNs saga: emotional perception, ANNs and the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. European Intellectual Property Review, 48 (7). pp. 469-473. ISSN 01420461
Abstract
The long-running dispute in Emotional Perception AI Ltd (EPAI) v Comptroller-General of Patents concluded in a landmark judgment on 11 February 2026 from the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC). It took seven months for the unanimous decision by justices, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens and Lord Kitchin. The ANNs case marked the first time the UKSC had addressed the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The decision represents a pivotal shift in UK patent law, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and software-based technologies, and brings the UK’s approach into closer alignment with that of the European Patent Office (EPO). Central to the ruling is the Court’s explicit rejection of the long-standing Aerotel test for assessing patent eligibility of computer-related inventions. In its place, the Court endorsed a framework grounded in the EPO’s “any hardware” approach and the Comvik principle. Under this model, the presence of technical means—such as computer hardware—satisfies the threshold requirement for an “invention”, after which only those features contributing to technical character are considered when assessing novelty and inventive step. This doctrinal realignment significantly alters the analytical structure previously applied by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and lower courts. The Court further clarified the legal status of artificial neural networks (ANNs), holding that an ANN is properly characterised as an abstract computational model which, when implemented in hardware, constitutes a set of executable instructions directing a machine to process data in a specified manner. Accordingly, an ANN is to be regarded as a computer program. The UKSC remitted the matter to the UKIPO with instructions to apply the revised framework: first, confirm the presence of an invention under the “any hardware” test; second, identify which claim features "contribute to technical character; and third, assess novelty and inventive step solely by reference to those technical features. While the Court allowed flexibility in determining how technical character should be identified, its decision signals a transformative moment in UK software patent jurisprudence and sets the stage for further doctrinal clarification in future cases."
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit Item |